tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 28, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with health care. today, senate republican leaders postponed a vote on legislation to overhaul the affordable care act. senator mitch mcconnell had been pushing for a vote by the end of the week. the delay comes after five senate republicans that they would not vote on the bill. now they would not support a procedural vote to start a debate on the bill, on monday the congressional office said the bill would leave 22 million americans uninsured by the end of the decade. while reducing federal spending by $321 billion. president trump met with gop senators to discuss efforts to
pass the bill. joining me now from washington is editor in chief of vioxx and the former head of the center for medicare and medicaid services, i am pleased to have them both here. i begin with you since we have talked about health care a lot. what happened? ezra: the score was devastating. they said the bill would lead to 22 million fewer people would have insurance by 2026 but it is much worse than that in what they said was going to happen. the key thing that congressional budget office found is the way this bill would work, it would put poor people into care that was so expensive in terms of its premiums, or so high in terms of its deductibles. the plans of the bill it is built around would have deductibles of 6000 or more dollars. they basically said no poor people, no low income folks
would actually buy plans under this legislation. in addition the cuts to medicaid were grievous. they rolled back medicaid expansion by 2024 and imposed a growth rate that begins to cut medicaid deeply in the in suing years. republicans looked at that and said this is not legislation i can bring home to my state, this not legislation i can defend supporting. they had to hold the vote because, not only would they have won a vote to bring the full to a debate, but they would not have won a vote to pass it. charlie: same thing? andy: i think they're looking at policies to cover more people and conservatives are generally looking for policies that reduce costs. out, theyinted managed to put forward a bill that the cbs has does neither of those two things. that means he had a difficult challenge because on both sides of him he has to make up ground.
it looked like the right flank was a little bit stronger. since he has put this out we are seeing equal number of people on both sides thing, wait a minute, we want to cover more people and folks on the other side saying wait a minute, this is too expensive. by the way, you are keeping the eca much more so intact than we -- the aca much more so intact then we would have wanted. he doesn't have a lot of time to solve it. charlie: i know this is simplistic for you guys, but it is the fissure between moderates and conservatives in the republican party. ezra: i think that is right. a fissuren to being between moderates and conservatives, it is a fissure between different types of goals.
conservatives want to roll back all of the affordable care act and this bill does not do that. it keeps the regulatory architecture of the of for the care act in place. then you have moderates who wanted the bill to cover as many people but bring down costs, stabilize markets. just sort of make it the same work. this really doesn't do that. senator mcconnell is in a place where he is not satisfying anyone. this keeps a basic centrality at the center of the american health care system. it takes away most of the good the affordable care act was doing. if you talk to most senate republicans and said to them what you want this bill to do? over and over again they would say they want to lower premiums. and the kaiser foundation looked at what this bill does on premiums based on the cbo score. when you look at the insurance standard under obamacare now, pre--- the insurance covers under 70's -- 70%. premiums to that, apples to apples, go up 74%. if people want to get as good and trends as they are getting now, there premiums go up 74% to that is a difficult sell whether your conservative or more moderate. charlie: do you guys think you could have crafted a bill that would have been able to meet the
test of the republican party so you would lose less than two republican votes. andy: if you take one factor, which we have not talked about yet, which is tax cuts, off the table, i think you would have a much better chance. what we really have is we have a situation where we have a significant amount of money out of the health care system in order to meet this separate need. unless you touch those tax cuts, which means starting over, the bill is not really fixable. i do not think there is tinkering you can do to fix one side or the other. the fundamental architecture is going to give the same set of answers. a lot of people are losing coverage and a lot of affordability problems. there are two avenues from here. one of them involves violating probably what the parliament is going to instruct them to do, to
go down the route that ted cruz would like them to go down. getting rid of things like community rating and pre-existing condition coverage. it will reduce insurance costs, but it will also reduce the value of insurance dramatically. or another route is to go down the path where it does not work and he says we need to bring in chuck schumer, a democrat. if he does that, i think he's probably got a different architecture. take tax cuts off the table and begins to focus on surgically fixing some of the challenges. charlie: do you need a tax cut to satisfy his conservative base? ezra: does he? this has been the great question. if they want to do tax cuts they should do tax cuts. you can figure it out from there. it would be easier than taking health insurance away from people. there are $590 billion of tax cuts in this bill. that is a lot of money.
ofn you look at the tax cuts individuals, 45% of them are going to 1%. the republican party is currently saying that they think the taxes paid by rich people in this country are a bigger problem than poor people not having health insurance. nobody else believes that. that is not what donald trump ran on. that is not what senate republicans ran on. when you listen to them you hear them said too many people are uninsured. senator john cornyn tweeted out, 28 million people are uninsured under the affordable care act. that is true. why not fix the problem? i know in washington we have this decoder ring and we know the central concern for republicans is tax cuts. when they go talk to the country, they do not say that. they definitely don't say it when they are talking about health care. why not take the money in obamacare spending and rework it so you are getting a system that
is more patient center, has a better market, has its insurance regulations constructed in a better way and go out with you can sell and be proud of and you can have hearings on. they do not need to use this. pitch to thetheir country in 2016 or in 2014 or in 2012. they could come out with a bill that they said they were going to solve. charlie: and you could argue, i'm assuming you could argue because of the mantra of republicans since before the care act passed, we have to repeal the -- before the affordable care act passed, we have to repeal this thing. and you said they could of done this if they haven't gotten caught in terms of another republican mainstream idea, which is we have to reduce taxes. andy: if they had a referendum, taking health care away from communities and families in the
lower 40%, they would have lost that referendum. i think the question about the close process we have has been answered. why have a closed process, because they couldn't put what they were doing up to the american public. what is interesting now is, what are they going to do? they have another window, and it appears they were beginning to get on the exact same path. claiming they were going to negotiate another deal with some minor changes. that is a recipe to be in the exact same place. charlie: you have people like rob portman, a senator from ohio having to face his governor, sayingin to see him and don't screw around with my medicaid. right.hat is these guys get off the airplane in their hometown and they run mom with a kid, they have
been pushing this child in the wheelchair because they have disabilities, and this mom gives the senator a piece of her mind. that happens all of the time. part of the reason why we are in the situation we are in is because they can only avoid the camera and their constituents for so long. they put a plank out there that wasn't part of repeal and replace. it is hurtful to people. it is bad policy and bad politics and now they have to find their way out of it. charlie: the politics i do not understand, but on the other hand you have those states where donald trump did significantly well, have a significant population that and if it from medicaid. you have two different kinds of groups opposed and supporting the senate bill and people like doctors and hospitals providing groups strongly against the senate bill. like the american heart association. business groups like the chamber of commerce were strongly in
support of it. ezra: it is a very big tax cut for them. the politics are very puzzling. the affordable care act was more disappointing -- or much more popular than any opponent we have seen in these republican health bills. we do not have pulling on the new senate health care bill. i don't expect it to be great here at what we saw before was polling in the low 20's, which is abysmal in american politics. that poll is above 70%. it is popular even among republicans. you are looking at a bill that is really not aligned on politics at all. it breaks all of donald trump's promises. you can imagine how many ads will be of him saying everybody will be covered under my plan, deductibles will be lower under my plan. and what they are trying to do, it can happen to mitch mcconnell and a lot of republicans.
one point that is important to say, republicans promised an repeal and replace obamacare. they did not stop there. they often told people you are going to get better insurance. senator mcconnell and others talked about how obamacare gives you insurance with such high deductibles you can't afford to use it. to turn around and create a plan that offers much higher deductible insurance as your core insurance product, that is not fulfilling your promise. it is breaking your promise. not only are they going counter to the politics on this issue, they are also breaking pretty direct promises on this issue. to go back to our earlier conversation, for what? for tax cuts? is it really worth this? charlie: if you could start from scratch, what would your bill look like in comparison to the affordable care act? andy: i think what is
interesting about the last few months, i have been out to 15 communities around the country talking to ordinary citizens about health care. in almost every conversation, i've conservatives, liberals, and both sides ask for medicare for all and single-payer, and so forth. i don't think anyone of us would have realistically said that as a possible conversation. it is coming up more and more and coming up on both sides of the aisle. i think what we are going to see, probably are things like we saw in nevada. there was a proposition for people to buy into the medicaid program. i think the country is moving in a direction in a bumpy direction, maybe we should be in a place where people shouldn't go bankrupt if they get sick. i don't think that is going to be as controversial as it once
was, depending on what happens here. aca.rting point is the the good news about that is there are some fixes that can be done locally and surgically to some of the exchanges, taking medicaid off the table. that could make progress. i think that probably is the next step. charlie: to take medicaid off the table? andy: to take medicaid cuts off the table. charlie: i mean medicaid as a negotiating element. two things that intrigued me, do you hear increasing conversation about a single-payer system or ise variation of that that quite different than something that any americans would not listen to. ezra: i agree with andy on this. if they pass a bill like this it will make some version of a medicare buy-in. i don't know about replacing the entire system of medicare. but a medicare buy-in for all. i think it is going to come pretty quickly. senator maccallum -- senator maccallum said if we don't pass
this is it that don't pass this it is going to be single-payer -- if we don't pass this it is going to be single-payer. sean spicer said that too, i think that is wrong. in a world with you for the care act continues, i think they will be content to make sure the exchanges are working ok. they will turn their attention to other things like universal pre-k, make in their college tuition's more affordable. they have major priorities before they get into a huge architectural battle again. but if republicans pass one of these bills and they lead to 22 million fewer people being insured, and this massive achievement of the democratic party being unwound and really all of its fundamental ways, medicaid being cut dramatically over the next couple of decades. you're going to see the same thing happen in the republican party happen in reverse, restoring what the four double care act has done will become a central cause. when a comeback and the power, all of those who were able to persuade them not to go to single-payer and private hybrid system based on what mitt romney did in massachusetts, they will be completely discredited.
in order to get back the coverage you are going to see democrats come in and create a medicaid buy-in paid for with subsidies that are financed by tax increases on the rich. you can pass that bill to the 51 vote reconciliation process. it is a straightforward and popular bill. they know that is going to be a foolish errand. if this passes, if they wreck obamacare and what it has done, where this is going to go is not to a world where the rich gets tax cuts and portable that and -- poor people get health insurance they can't afford. so far this has been stopped by moderates, which is a single-payer-esque system. i can't see president trump getting on that bandwagon. for someone who made a lot of promises on health care, he has been utterly submissive to the congressional republican agenda since winning the presidency.
i assume he means it and people around him had persuaded it to him. despite the fact that in the past he has talked positively about canadian single-payer systems, he has shown no evidence of wanting to work with democrats or being ideologically heterodox since winning the white house. charlie: what do you to differ on? ezra: i was waiting for andy to go to our debate. andy: i do think we need to get away from the point where, as ezra was pointing to, we change our health care election system cycle. the real world we live in that american families, hospitals, physicians, they can't handle that. it will not last. i think americans are very scared of the fact that they are political identity and their interest in improving health
care had become one thing. and they have to identify themselves as either a trump supporter or an obama person or some political label, and that drives how they expect the health care system should go. that is how it should be. ultimately, my perspective is the only way we get to bipartisanship is when partisanship fails. if you have both houses, if you have the white house, sure the easiest path is to go down and get your bill done. if it does not work, this is why we need it to fail, we don't need it to fail because it is bad policy, we need it to fail afford to seenot election after election and change our health care system each time. ezra: we do agree on something actually. i don't disagree in principle with what andy is saying, i'm much more pessimistic about the prospects. i don't think there is any version of mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer working together. going forward i think we will
see that. american politics are dangerous and not what i wish they were, but it is becoming more polarized and these kinds of things are becoming really the province of one party or the other. i would like to see more stability in the system, i would not like to see massive architecture change happening election by election. i think that is what we are in for for a little while. i don't see polarization changing. i don't see the parties finding a lot of good in working together given how the elections are working out. i don't see anything that makes me think those underlying trends in the political system are going to change. if this bill fails i think it would be a good thing but i'm not optimistic it would lead to some bipartisan process to succeed and republicans are likely to just give up and hope obamacare implodes on its own and continue to sabotage it from the sidelines and move on to tax reform. charlie: the reason i always
thought the president insisted on health care first is because he wanted to feed his tax reform proposals. ezra: you don't need that to happen. what appears to have happen is paul ryan and mitch mcconnell persuaded president trump that they needed this to happen, that he needed to make the reconciliation rules work for the tax proposals. you don't need to do any of that. you could simply do tax reform that ends after 10 years. which is what george w. bush did. they could increase the deficit as much as you wanted in the 10 year window. enter your successors to undo it. at the end of the 10 years most of the tax cuts were extended permanently so is not like those a failed strategy. or you could ignore the whole thing and override the reconciliation process. or get rid of the filibuster as they did on the supreme court justice. this idea that there was some kind of legislative need to it this way, donald trump has a solid bill of goods on it but it doesn't make any underlying sense. if you are willing to take the political pain of the
the insuring 22 million people, you are willing to take the political pain. charlie: the effort to somehow replace obamacare and all the debate that has come out of that has made it even more intense a political football than it was before the trump administration began. do you agree with that? andy: i think that's right, and i think we're dealing with the inexperience and maybe a little bit of the indifference of the white house as it came in and believe that with the majority all you and need to do is a couple of golf sessions, not even necessarily read the bill, and what you learned is that this is deeply intense and personal. if you go out to real america and talk to people, they are much more educated about health care than they were a year ago. they're much more invested and
much more active. i don't say that in an activist the way, i say that in a way where i understand what a high risk pool is. more americans know what a cbo score is today than they ever did before. there is a sense in the real world that i hope overpowers things and i think it did have some effect here in the last week where the politicians recognize that they can't just do a politically expedient job to get something done, that they are living the 2016 promise when in 2017, we had many americans who say we are focused on this. said, we didn't ask you to make health care worse. it is a potential building block for the country. charlie: thank you so much, great to have you here. thank you for coming. we will be right back, stay with
♪ the architects earn international prominence in 1985. -- 1995. in 2008 they collaborated with chinese artists to design the beijing national stadium for the olympic games created he joined forces in 2012 for the serpentine gallery in london. artist and activist is best known for his politically charged exhibitions, most recently focusing on the global refugee crisis. all three join me to join about -- talk about the latest collaboration. it is called han solo and gretel. it is an installation at the park avenue arm in new york that exposed issue of surveillance in
public space. welcome. little i to, and who do i ask, how did this collaboration begin? it is not the first, but how how -- how did this particular collaboration on this particular project begin? >> the first one was initiated by our friendship and visiting each other. it was willingly. two others has been because we have been asked by curators that wanted us to collaborate again. in fact, we have been doing the many things we have done before. charlie: collaborating with artist? >> also, we talk about collaboration with pierre and myself. that is based on, especially our own initiative and friendship and willingness to do something together. of course for the pavilion in
, we needed someone to give us the job. we have been asked to do this. that is two different reasons we collaborate. charlie: how does the collaboration work? [laughter] it is inspiring. otherwise we wouldn't do it. we share the same readiness to be creators, to be open and to discover things together. it is in exchange, we also challenge with each other. questioning yourself and questioning the other, questioning the topic we are working on. that is how we make progress in our own lives and thinking. charlie: how do you see it? >> i see it in today's world where we are no longer just one profession, you are doing so many different things together.
veryrchitecture team is arts, which is beyond architecture. and also working very different in the field. for us it is a very natural act. charlie: is it about anesthetic or an idea? >> it is about ball. -- both. conceptually we believe our activities beyond one proportion but understanding creativity and to explore the idea of how it is being creative. then there are a lot of ideas relating to that. charlie: when you talk about
what you're doing, we will see a video in a moment, did they come to you and say we want you to do something? do what you want to do? >> they have this program every year, they invite the artist to do a drill hole to do the installation. charlie: they give you a blank canvas? >> yes. charlie: why surveillance? >> we started with nothing as always. >> it's not that we said surveillance is our topic. we started with a blank canvas. really, we want to start from scratch. do orowing what he would i would do independently, in this case, we have this huge, empty space, and we say that is our potential. it is rated -- very extraordinary for us.
and that is our potential. we have the spontaneous idea together, this is a place for everybody, where you should lose yourself. this was the beginning. and then, only when we were further thinking about people re freely that cameras would follow and we would trace the path. that's how different elements came together and filled up this space, made it a mental space. a surveillance space. a psychological space, whatever. we could now discern it afterwards. it's not that it started with a title or the idea of surveillance, but those things came in after. charlie: where does the title hansel and gretel come from? why is it appropriate to this?
>> this came in much later, because this traces that you project is mindful of the fairytale. it is a brutal story. of course the tradition has something scary and menacing and the side of the dark forest and darkness and getting lost. it could also be another title. it is just something that is at to the complexity of the space. charlie: what do you want people who go through this to come away with? >> we want people to get a totally new experience one -- when they walk into this huge dark condition. this architecture has a very special character and it is such an important geographic location for the city. people want to rediscover where
they are and what kind of relationship they are in this space. they will be surprised or hesitate what is going on. sometimes you discover some very playful interesting possibilities. which is not a normal experience, i should say. and the images, and the kind of seductive movement you gain from it. then it would transform into youher location, which would find your image unconsciously or unnoticed recorded. also you can discover it's kind of a surprise. the image itself is so fresh and interesting.
even in modern person, especially in the west cities, they are being 100 times recorded. actually going through it and to experience it and have images printed up is very new. charlie: all art is informed by personal experiences, but as your perspective informed by your own experience? >> yes, it is also associated with my experience.
past 10 years or so. a few thousand civilians. my phone had been tapped. charlie: how does it change? >> may feel a special connection. the power is watching. they always want more out from you. charlie: is the message that there is too much surveillance, or is it simply to examine a sense of how we feel about it and how it changes or affects us? >> well, we cannot change this. i think that part and architecture cannot really change the world. it makes people aware. i think this installation should do several things. it should not be a moral lesson or so. it should be entertaining and playful but also a deep experience or deep perception or
better understanding of their normal condition. also as we discussed earlier, it contains an element which is quite interesting, people and increasing surveillance by public cameras, but they do that on themselves. they increase that through the use of mobile phones and public media and social media. that element is also part of the installation. with a camera that captures people and people are eager to go and discover themselves. it is not that they feel menaced by that but also kind of a strange pleasure or a strange satisfaction. >> the idea of freebies has replaced the idea of photographs. they want to be surveilled by themselves. there are no harmful effects.
>> it's very complex and very psychological. i think that is even on top of surveillance, the psychological component of space and architecture is interesting. normally it is disconnected from architecture. the fact that this is an art installation allows it to be so powerful i think in this case. charlie: did i hear either review suggesting there is no solution to this? this is simply a modern fact of life? >> yes, i think so. we have to understand the impact and live it. this is a possibility to live it in present, to be exposed to all of that and to want to involve people directly. also to have them as act does, but to really be there, to go there and be exposed to all of this. we always were questioning ourselves and the balance and the outcome.
whoooo. you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if there was a single site where you could find the right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.
for an unexpected way, some light on the ground and start dancing and form groups. we thought they would just walk. they are performing. they are freely discovering the potential, also the technology and looking at what it does. >> it is not an answer. when we observe people, at the beginning you don't quite know what it is. you are afraid, you are insecure. the more you get in the more you get accustomed. whether it is against or something just to do for yourself or in the space. that is what is quite interesting, to see this shift, this difference and change in behavior. >> this is an image that was there for the olympics in
beijing. tell me about the collaboration on this. how did it work? >> that was an invitation -- it was part of a competition. for the national stadium. that is probably the first or only time they completed the superstar architectural form that could be presented. a list of complete activities with a foreign jury. which is very weary in china. you often invite architects but don't how the foreign jury. charlie: they have a foreign jury -- >> their internment will have
some western death of values or architectural practice. -- western type of values or architectural practice. interesting in this project. i was contacted by a common friend who was ambassador to china. they started to agree in collaboration. i acted more like a consultant and introduce him to chinese culture or modern politics. that was a very different china and switzerland. >> this is not quite right.
a great artist, a great friend but also a great architect. it's not that he says why don't you do this a little more green or a little more blue, but he has a deep knowledge of space and structure, and it was a serious collaboration. always when we do something it is real. he has done the studio and a -- studio that was demolished in shanghai. very few can do such quality architect. our office has a big infrastructure. it was very important in this project. hopefully we are very much involved in the way he sees it,
which are seemingly not our homeland, which is art. that is a strange and interesting thing. collaborations today, that sounds good. it's his own territory. it is not easy to let it go and see what happens. that is what the three of us try to do. >> what we agree on from the beginning is this approach, we didn't see this as an olympic stadium. was declined and asked for stadium for everything. of course we have to achieve that.
the chinese are smart, understanding that the previous, they were difficult to maintain. you don't just do such a stadium infrastructure for 100,000 people. then two weeks more. then they have no function. we thought that is not just a post-olympic use, but the post-olympic use should be for the people. which is an infrastructure, and infrastructure for the people themselves.
that is also happening. many many thousands of visitors every year. charlie: so you see it as a public case that public place. >> to do something, -- you see it as a public place. >> it became something for the public and the future. charlie: can you go back to china? >> i think i can. it is still not very safe but i think i can. too often my lawyers are still in jail.
i feel for my friends in detention. i consider myself quite lucky. it would allow me to go back and forth. charlie: might you collaborate on something else? >> we have no plans. today was a tough day. when we talk, strangely that was not planned. that is how we all saw it. , made some obscene remark which was in that moment quite right and they were all laughing and joking, but somehow, it was typical for the way we are .ogether, and we enjoy that also, when we go out for dinner,
it is really a mixture of all these things. we started with politics. it isrt with this, and difficult to explain, but that probably makes us want to continue to do something, but it also has to make sense because he is so busy. we are very busy, and it should be something we could not do otherwise. charlie: talking about some other things you have done, this is a collaboration again. just describe this. what am i looking at? >> routine practice for the institution. this kind of temporary building.
this program is still continuous. we are very -- this program is trying to make us understand the nature of this type of project. it is a clear architecture practice with a strong culture inference. it is perfect for us to work out because we have to start from a zero. no matter how experienced they are and how strongly opinion i have. this is the foundation of our project. >> we don't do that in many of our professions. we always share this kind of
experience. >> you have found your playmates. >> yes. that is so vivid. we take a paper, we start to make a very basic understanding, fundamental understanding philosophically about architecture, foundation, and what could be the meaning or possibilities. charlie: i just want everybody to see this since this is your first time here. there you go. one of the great museums of the world. what should we add to that? first of all, there is no signature style here. >> it is something very typical for him but the way we are working. we also are a collaborative project through our biographies.
since we were seven years old, since we go to school. we started to do things together. never with a plan to do a job together. you start to share. the two of us, we have totally different characters. you learn to use them as a difference. you use the difference as an energy and asset. the same is with the building that you show here. it's an existing structure, which has had so much power in
itself, and we can see the transformation of that building as something where we first use this energy before we change anything. >> and extension completed in 2016, here it is. it's amazing that this in the previous are from the same architects. >> this is in the middle, not on the right. >> not the one on the right. >> this a strange form that has a result from the geometry given by the form of the street. it sits on top of oil tanks, which were hidden in the ground. that starts from something existing and morphs of into this strange form. which has a rationale. it's not a mood that makes it through this form. one picture cannot explain it.
>> one important picture or image is missing. it's a covert space for people. it's an extension of the public space. there we all come back to the olympic stadium in beijing area we had this for the first time. a really strong and huge public space where people go. maybe not having that you to go to the museum, this is a place where -- charlie: i want them to see this last picture in germany. take a look at this. >> if you have the brick building, and existing
warehouse, and on top of it we build the glass building. this is also a public space, this is a place for everyone. this is a place for the ever thousands and 10,000. an incredible view. >> think you forgot to thank you for coming -- thank you for coming, and honor. we have been trying to get you here at this table for a while. i am honored that you came on this occasion. thank you for joining us, see you next time. ♪
alisa: i'm alisa parenti from washington, and you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your first word news. president trump is urging congress to get moving on immigration reform. he met with immigration crime victims at the white house earlier today. the house votes tomorrow on the so-called "no sanctuary for criminals" act. the move is considered a bid to stop antagonizing the special counsel investigating links between the president pass campaign and russia. rex tillerson is clamping down on hiring. it's part of his push to overhaul his department.